Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the Ruh-Roh!-What-happens-now? dept.

Boris Johnson loses Parliamentary majority, faces Brexit showdown

Britain's Parliament returns from its summer recess and is facing a titanic showdown over Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plans to leave the European Union. Here's what we know:

● Johnson has lost his majority in Parliament, with the defection of Conservative Phillip Lee to the Liberal Democrats.

● The opposition, including members of Johnson's party, is seeking to pass legislation to delay Brexit.

● Johnson has said that if his foes succeed he will call early elections.

Live coverage.

List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure

#54: George Canning, 119 days (1827)
#55: Boris Johnson, 40 days (Incumbent) (2019)

See also: Brexit: Tory MP defects ahead of crucial no-deal vote
How Brexit Blew Up Britain's Constitution


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:25AM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:25AM (#889376)

    UK people or experts, check me on this: doesn't he need a 2/3 vote of Parliament to call elections?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by juggs on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:38AM (11 children)

      by juggs (63) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:38AM (#889377) Journal

      Correct. 2/3 majority required for the PM to call for it or simple majority in case of no confidence.

      ref
      https://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/general-elections/ [parliament.uk]

      Given how the UK politicians seem to be delighting in doing anything other than getting on with the job at hand it would likely be a successful motion. That gives them some time to not get on with the job at hand by faffing about grandstanding for a month or so in an election run up.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:43AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:43AM (#889380) Journal

        doing anything other than getting on with the job at hand it would likely be a successful motion. That gives them some time to not get on with the job at hand by faffing about grandstanding for a month or so in an election run up.

        Seems to me that if they do neither of the two but just continue to grandstand for the whole term, the time to not get on with the job at hand is maximized.
        Just sayin'.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:13AM (9 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:13AM (#889423) Journal
        Can he not call for a vote of no-confidence against himself?
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:23AM (7 children)

          by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:23AM (#889430) Journal

          Isn't that usually called a resignation?

          --
          "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
          • (Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:27AM

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:27AM (#889431) Journal
            I think there's a technical difference but they generally result in the same outcome.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:31AM (5 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:31AM (#889434) Journal
            Well I did a little searching and this seems interesting: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/not-so-fixed-term-parliaments-act
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:39AM (4 children)

              by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:39AM (#889455) Journal

              Fascinating. The Act empowers minor parties and scrambles hundreds of years of tradition.

              Boris may have misjudged how attached some of his party are to being Tories.

              --
              "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
              • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:45AM (3 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:45AM (#889460) Journal
                Looks like they can stay Tories.

                (What deep ancestral memories that word brings.)

                Tories might have an option to put forward another PM. Unlikely, as I see it, Boris got it because everyone else was afraid of it. Maybe I'm wrong.

                If they decline... someone has to form a viable government, which requires (correct me if I'm wrong) a majority in parliament PLUS the Queens invitation.

                Which she'll probably give to anyone that looks like they have a viable government, but still, WHO could possibly do that at this point?

                If there's no viable government it would seem there's really no choice but to call new elections until there is. That's the Parliamentary system right?
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:07PM (2 children)

                  by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:07PM (#889497) Journal

                  The EU wanted to make it hard for the UK to leave, as an eample to other members, but no one knew how hard they'd make it themselves.

                  Vote, vote, vote again.

                  --
                  "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
                  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @03:16AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @03:16AM (#889835)

                    The Brits never even showed up for negotiations - 2 Brexit ministers quit after showboating and doing nothing for 2 years. The whole thing has been an internal (within the Tory party) game of one-up-manship. The same kind of pricks who were Generals in WW1 have been the UK Government since Cameron accidentally won a majority in 2016.

                    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday September 05 2019, @04:13AM

                      by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday September 05 2019, @04:13AM (#889857) Journal

                      Seems none of the involved parties is negotiating in good faith.

                      --
                      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:23PM (#889539)

          Yes, but doing so *doesn't* trigger a general election. Instead, it triggers a two-week period in which anyone else can try to form a government. The danger for a minority government doing this is that they may end up with another party leading a coalition, rather than a general election.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:43AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:43AM (#889379)

      He does. Jeremy Corbyn says he will allow elections to be called, but only with a guarantee that there will not be a no-deal Brexit. So, that's probably not happening soon. Normally there'd be a no-confidence vote at this point, but since the Queen has suspended Parliament, there's perhaps not enough time, unless it can happen before September 9.

      The situation is very, very strange.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Mainframe Bloke on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:45AM (1 child)

        by Mainframe Bloke (1665) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:45AM (#889381) Journal

        There is a small possibility of a different route:

        I read on the BBC that he (or whoever follows him if he's gone soon) can submit a bill to have an election on a specific date, in which case only a simple majority is needed.

        From https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46393399: [bbc.com] [bbc.com]

        "Theoretically, there is another way he could achieve his goal. A short new law specifying the date of an early general election would require only a simple majority and not need two-thirds of MPs."

        Either way, I reckon he's toast but I don't get a vote...

        • (Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:22AM

          by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:22AM (#889429) Journal
          I am not a barrister, but as far as I understand a no-confidence vote can be initiated by the sitting PM himself. It only requires a simple majority, and does not by itself spark new elections, but it puts the ball in the oppositions court. They have 14 days to form a new government and pass an act of confidence in them - otherwise a new election must be held.

          Another possibility is that he could simply resign. In that case, if my memory serves, the Queen would then call upon the opposition to form a new government with the same results if they fail to do so.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:04AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:04AM (#889384)

    1. Brexit will never happen, for the European Union is just a Soviet Union ver. 2.0

    2. New king will abolish the constitution for good, but a very serious crisis must be engineered to achieve that.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:04AM (#889398)

      Yep, perfect example of what happens when you give up guns.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:46AM (#889461)

      1. Brexit will never happen, for the European Union is just a Soviet Union ver. 2.0

      Right idea, wrong ideology...
      The EU is the Fourth Reich.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:53AM (2 children)

    by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:53AM (#889386) Journal

    What's the penalty if Johnson breaks the anti-no-deal law? Will he be drawn and quartered? Or just face a no-confidence vote? The time when politicians would pretend to behave like gentleman is over.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:43AM (#889459)

      Without a no confidence vote, Johnson could either delay presenting the bill for royal assent or advise against it being granted.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:57AM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:57AM (#889491)

      > would pretend to behave like gentleman is over

      Did it ever begin?

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:53AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:53AM (#889387)

    ... where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:59PM (#889690)

      Why? He was a failure.

  • (Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:01AM (43 children)

    by Appalbarry (66) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:01AM (#889388) Journal

    What I still fail to understand are what the purported benefits of Brexit will be. I honestly can't see any, aside from some vague nationalistic fervour.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:18AM (#889390)

      Sovereignty of the Royal family. The one and only real purpose of Brexit.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:22AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:22AM (#889393)

      The freedom for the country to decide its own path, similar to an individual emancipating himself from their parents?
      It is what the British electorate has democratically decided they want.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:12AM (5 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:12AM (#889422) Journal

        Kinda like when a child "runs away from home" for half an hour or so (to the back yard, generally) because he wants ice cream instead of peas, only to discover that the back yard offers neither ice cream nor peas? Only in this case, they discover that the locks are changed and the porch light is off after the half hour?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:05AM (#889447)

          More like when an adult gets married, then decides to get a divorce, then realizes that their spouse walks the dog and buys the groceries. Oh no! Now we're going to have to do that all ourselves? We'll be ruined. Ruined, I tell you. Wait... she gets the dog? All good then.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:24PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:24PM (#889655)

          Britain ruled the world before. Your "child" talk has no connection to reality.

          If any country has shown themselves to be capable of navigating themselves on the seas of nations, it would be the UK.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:17PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:17PM (#889676)

            Any amounts of wishful thinking can not bring back neither the long-gone people, nor the long-gone economic situation.

          • (Score: 1) by Akemi Homura on Thursday September 05 2019, @01:53AM

            by Akemi Homura (8470) on Thursday September 05 2019, @01:53AM (#889791)

            And do you forget what has changed since Britain ruled the world? It has been nearly a century. There was no global communications infrastructure, no routine international travel in the span of hours or days, and most countries were Iron-Age or early Industrial-Age at best. Britain was also horrendously cruel to many of its colonies. Why do you wish to recreate these times of suffering and ignorance?

            --
            Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:45AM

            by sjames (2882) on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:45AM (#889890) Journal

            I might buy that if they had something like preparation or a plan. Apparently, the current 'plan' being pushed is "no need for a plan, pack nothing, just start walking".

            It's going to be hard to navigate anything when the maps, compass, and sextant have been left behind. And you better believe there will be a morale problem when the crew finds out that there are no rations and worse, no rum.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:21AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:21AM (#889452)

        It is what the British electorate has democratically decided they want.

        Slight technical correction, UK electorate (NI isn't geographically part of Great Britain), but yes, and all this shite about the 'Deal' is something the politicians added after the fact, we voted on the question of leave, not leave with a deal, but leave...the politicos never wanted Brexit and thought the sheep would swallow their pro-EU propaganda and vote accordingly...but the sheep didnt vote as expected, so they've done their best to 'spanner' the process ever since.

        The 'democratic will of the people' has been subverted by the 'sovereign rights of parliament'.

        'We, the people' (to borrow a phrase) voted to leave, and that should have been..end of fucking story...alas, the machinations of perfidious quisling politicians...

        It's a farce, mind you, there are political silver linings...showing the world the that UK parliamentary democracy is a sham, destruction of the Labour party (a lot of their voters want out of the EU, though you wouldn't think that listening to the MPs, and these voters will have taken note of their actions) destruction of the Tories (always something to be applauded on general principals), dissolution of the act of union (finally...thank fuck)

        Of course, there are political downsides, the fuckwits in the Liberal party now think they're important again..and then there's Farage & co..the Little 'Engurlunders' Party..

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:40PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:40PM (#889565)

          we voted on the question of leave, not leave with a deal, but leave

          Yes, and Vote Leave made all kinds of promises about how leaving wouldn't hurt trade in the slightest, how the new deal with the EU would be the easiest deal ever, how the UK would hold all the cards, etc. That's what people voted for, because that's what the leave option was presented to them as.

          Now that reality has turned out to be quite different from all the lies, do you agree We The People should have a chance to say if we still think leaving is a good idea? I think so.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:00PM (#889610)

            Now that reality has turned out to be quite different from all the lies

            They never left... reality turned out to be that voting doesn't mean shit in the UK.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:03PM (#889691)

          It was a non-binding resolution that most people didn't give two shits about, because it was a non-binding resolution. Then it barely squeaked over the finish line. Now you people cry "the will of the people"??

          Maybe if it WAS a binding resolution AND it passed by MUCH more than just a few percent, then you can talk about the will of the people and democratic rule, etc. It was basically just a big Facebook like/dislike quiz.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by juggs on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:29AM (4 children)

      by juggs (63) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:29AM (#889395) Journal

      Not being federated, a.k.a independence, which of course plays well to being able to keep your financial trading centre with somewhat lax oversight.

      There are numerous other reasons that have been touted and that Brexit will in no way actually achieve, but the people have been sold on them none the less.

      If in doubt, follow the money.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:29AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:29AM (#889433) Journal

        Not being federated, a.k.a independence, which of course plays well to being able to keep your financial trading centre with somewhat lax oversight.

        Do you think the EU will trust them without checks? And if checks aren't allowed, do you think they'll continue to use the London City?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:54PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:54PM (#889609)

          Yes, and yes.

          Because London was London way before the EU even existed, and its trading rules are actually very useful in the real world. For an analysis of how, look at the real world of international finance. In fact, many companies would probably pull similar tricks to those of US companies establishing foreign branches for the purposes of avoiding drooling, festering, mind-numblingly idiotic US tax laws.

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:37PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:37PM (#889632) Journal

            London was, indeed, London before the EU existed. That was in the days of the British Empire or Commonwealth, so today is not quite the same. It was also when the fasted way to send a message was in a fast ship.

            Well, things are a bit different now. *Perhaps* London will continue to be significant, but just because it was previously don't mean that it will be in the changed circumstances. Inertia might keep it that way for awhile, but if the EU doesn't trust the way London handles money, the EU money won't pass through London, because it no longer has the advantages it used to.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:21PM (#889696)

        In this case, follow the propaganda straight to the Kremlin.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:06AM (#889401)

      You should try looking it up outside your favorite fake news sources?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:40AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:40AM (#889407)

      Regarding direct amounts the UK pays far more into the EU than they get back. So saving about nine billion pounds a year.
      https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ [fullfact.org]

      re. indirect costs/benefits, opinions differ.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:47AM (4 children)

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:47AM (#889462) Journal

      1 - Politicians and their friends in business stand to get rich(er) by betting against the pound and selling the country to US lobbyists.
      2 - Wealthy politicians, bankers, hedge fund managers etc get to avoid all those EU financial transparency laws that come in soon and would otherwise expose all their dirty money.
      3 - All our bananas will be bendy again.
      4 - New passports! Blue ones!
      5 - Rupert Murdoch gets to stick two fingers up to the EU, who recognise him for the crooked, weasly little shit that he is.
      6 - White folk get free reign to abuse, beat and brutalise muslims, immigrants, East Europeans, people who look like they might be Muslims, people wot talk funny, west europeans, people who sympathise with people who look like they might be muslims, lesbians who won't do sexy stuff on busses for the sexual gratification of passing incel dickheads, and anybody who the Sun/ Telegraph label a "Traitor/Quisling" respectively.

      On a side note, why won't Rupert Murdoch just hurry up and die?

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:15AM (#889470)

        Typical propaganda. List all the bad points and then finish with a sweetener.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:00PM (#889611)

        1) Maybe. Or maybe Sterling's independence will make it a net more valuable commodity - in fact, this has been a substantial point in its favour since the Euro has had such long, extended teething pains. (And promises to have more, thanks to limited fiscal integration.)

        2) Meh. The US is already bullying large parts of the rest of the world for that. Leaving the EU doesn't change that for a moment. Not that the UK was exactly the last of the great tax havens, either.

        3) Right. Sure. Whatever.

        4) Yes, of course, nobody really cares anyway.

        5) Doesn't matter to the government, at least half of whom would cheerfully see him sodomised by the Baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells.

        6) Oh, right, because that's how the UK works ... oh, wait ...

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:12PM

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:12PM (#889692)

        Hang on, hang on!

        Are you trying to tell me that Rupert Murdoch doesn't have my best interests at heart?

        I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Well, not that shocked.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @10:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @10:34AM (#889948)

        2 - Wealthy politicians, bankers, hedge fund managers etc get to avoid all those EU financial transparency laws that come in soon and would otherwise expose all their dirty money.

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49578400 [bbc.co.uk]

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:46AM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:46AM (#889474)

      During the run up to the referendum the benefits were mostly about "taking back control" of our borders, making our own trade deals, sovereignty, etc. The leave campaign also made a big deal of getting out from the EU fishing quotas and how the money currently sent to the EU would be used to fund the NHS (the infamous £350 million a week claim). The leave campaign also talked about how we would be in a much better position to make trade deals with other countries on our own and how this would benefit the economy. We were assured the EU would cave to our demands as they needed us more than we needed them so there were really no downsides to leaving.

      Of course as it turns out the fishermen will be fucked if we leave with no deal, the £350 million will be more than offset by the costs of leaving, the trade deals have evaporated or are seriously unpopular (see the chlorinated chicken and selling the NHS to the US controversies), and it turns out we aren't able to keep all the benefits of EU membership with none of the costs.

      So now no one talks about the benefits of leaving. The talking points have shifted away from how we're going to be better off to how it's not going to be that bad (the government have spent a lot of time assuring people that there won't be medicine shortages and while food prices may rise we won't have to bring in rationing), and that leaving is "the will of the people" and that "the referendum must be respected".

      In short the benefits were either vague or incorrect, and now it's about how the referendum must be respected regardless of cost.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:49AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:49AM (#889489)

        This is hilarious because my friend was in the UK during the vote and wasnt told a single thing you just mentioned. The narrative of the fake news you listen to changed and you think other people are stupid because of that.

        It was unelected bureaucrats passing down endless annoying regulations with "unintended" consequences they were too clueless to foresee. The end.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:51PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:51PM (#889570)

          I couldn't really parse what you wrote, but I was in the UK at the time, too, and I saw the Brexit Bus most prominently on the television.

          Also, anyone with the slightest clue about all the functions that have been centralised in the EU to achieve harmonization and cost savings, everything from flight traffic control to the Europol to medical and food safety and a hundred others, would have instantly realized quitting all those deals and building up the whole thing from scratch for yourself in the name of "sovereignity" would not in a million years save any money. The other option of leaving but still adhearing to those standards set by the EU would be the complete opposite of sovereignity. But then again, it's been clear from the very beginning that the brexiteers are not particularly bright. Too bad the Remain campaign also did the worst possible job of highlighting these facts.

          • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:46PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:46PM (#889607)

            Yes, you seem much more intelligent than the strawmen your news sources apparently made up for you. Brexit bus? No one I heard about cared about a "brexit bus". How about you exit your echo chamber and go talk to real people.

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:43PM (1 child)

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:43PM (#889636) Journal

              The name is not the thing. AFAIK it wasn't called "the BREXIT bus" until it hit court, but it was a real event, and it may an actual false claim that was known to be false at the time it was made by the people making it. (Well, as least the top levels.) The court just decided that lying to the electorate wasn't a crime.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:08PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:08PM (#889648)

                And no one cared about that non issue

        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:16PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:16PM (#889694)

          This is hilarious because my friend was in the UK during the vote and wasnt told a single thing you just mentioned.

          Then your friend is either an idiot or wasn't paying attention.

          Assuming he or she exists.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:29PM (2 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:29PM (#889598) Journal

        fishermen will be fucked if we leave with no deal

        Not true at all. British waters become outside the zone of EU fishermen. The UK will have very rich fishing grounds under their own control again and it considerably helps British fishermen.

        the £350 million will be more than offset by the costs of leaving

        Partly true. The £350 million is quite a bit less (about half) but it would still be a saving for the UK. Whether that will be enough to offset the falling £ remains to be seen, but much of that is caused by business uncertainty not by one result or the other.

        it turns out we aren't able to keep all the benefits of EU membership with none of the costs

        The UK will not be able to keep all of the benefits, but that doesn't mean they will have none. Both Germany and France actually want to have trade deals with the UK, but would prefer them to be under EU rules.

        The bottom line is that the people were asked to vote, they did so, and the politicians then changed the rules of what leaving actually meant. This is a serious threat to democracy. Parliament is meant to be there to carry out the will of the country, usually by people voting for one manifesto or another. But this has shown that the politicians don't actually care what the public voted for, they all want to feather their own nests. All sides in the UK parliament are looking after their own political interests and not the interests of the people who voted - the majority of which voted leave. If people now claim that 'they didn't know what it would entail' then they should have thought about it a bit more deeply. But those remainers, who are only slightly less in number than Brexiteers, can see a path to get their own way now despite having already lost the vote. For them, it is a case of we will keep on voting until you vote for the right choice. The majority believe that they already have done so.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:50PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:50PM (#889726)

          > The UK will have very rich fishing grounds under their own control

          LOL - if you think the nearshore and 20km-range fisheries around the UK are "very rich" you don't know shit about fish. In very rich fishing grounds, the sea is silver. That's not hyperbole, talk to a real commercial fisherman (not a river hipwader). If you've seen dive videos of schools of fish, that is rich fishing grounds. If there were schools like that within UK waters they'd very quickly be hoovered up by contemporary factory fishboats.

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:26PM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:26PM (#889736) Journal

            they'd very quickly be hoovered up by contemporary factory fishboats.

            Or fleets of European fishing boats who have been given the right to fish there by the EU. That is precisely what has happened. How much has the UK fishing fleet declined by since they lost the sole access to the traditional UK fishing grounds?

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:00PM (5 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:00PM (#889493)

      > what the purported benefits of Brexit will be.

      A directly elected legislature.

      The EU lower house is filled with nominated place-men and women and the elective upper house has no power. The EU president is nominated.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:17PM (4 children)

        by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:17PM (#889507)

        A directly elected legislature.

        What, like the one we already have in the House of Commons that the (currently unelected) PM is desperately trying to circumvent to force through the most extreme possible interpretation of an advisory referendum held by a previous government - that lost any majority it might have had for "no deal" (if not Brexit) in the 2017 election?

        This is now less about Brexit and more about getting Beloved Leader Bo-Jo-Il to look up "elected legislature" in his dictionary... because if he gets his way on no deal Brexit (even if that might be for the best, long-term) then he surely isn't going to let any pesky "elected legislature" scrutinise a future trade deal with his good friend Donald (although he won't get that if he has to build a wall across Ireland - a thorny issue that the status quo solves, but a no-deal brexit turns up to 11).

        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:57PM (3 children)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:57PM (#889549)

          > like the one we already have in the House of Commons

          The EU has power to overrule the House of Commons, so actually no, not like the one we already have.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:11PM (2 children)

            by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:11PM (#889579)

            The EU has power to overrule the House of Commons, so actually no, not like the one we already have.

            Well, first, any EU directive has to be proposed by the EU executive (on which our democratically elected government is represented) then passed by the directly-elected EU parliament (if we squander our allotted seats by electing far-right zealots who just jeer at the foreign Johnnies while being sure to claim their full expenses that's our democratic right to be stupid) then passed into law by the House of Commons who at least get the chance to debate and amend the legislation.

            Meanwhile, or PM seems to think that he has the power to overrule the House of Commons - or at least use every trick in the book to avoid respecting the decision that the House made back in the spring to rule out "no deal". Do you really think he's going to open up his sweetheart deal with Trump to scrutiny by parliament if he can get away without? TTIP (you know, that US/EU trade deal that would have let US companies sue our government) will be a picnic compared to that. True - the EU executive tried to sneak that one through (executives do as executives will) but the democratic elements of the EU managed to fight it off - no thanks to our wonderful UK government which always seems to think that what is good for General Motors is good for the UK).

            NB: If Boris wants to talk about losing bargaining clout (which he seems to think means 'do what I want or I'll shoot myself in the foot - then you'll be sorry!') then he should think about the wisdom of entering into negotiations with the US and others after burning his bridges with our current trading partners.

            • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday September 05 2019, @08:57AM (1 child)

              by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday September 05 2019, @08:57AM (#889927)

              > proposed by the EU executive (on which our democratically elected government is represented)

              But these are placemen nominated by Boris Johnson, Corbyn et al. That is simply not good enough in the modern era.

              > then passed by the directly-elected EU parliament

              the directly-elected parliament has the power to block legislation but not to propose legislation. This is not good enough.

              > then passed into law by the House of Commons

              But it is illegal for the UK legislature (commons, lords and queen) to not pass the law so this is a bit of a false argument.

              My argument is that the EU has powers very much like the US federal government. The EU does not, yet, have the power to raise direct taxes; and (consequently) the EU does not maintain a standing army. But they do have the power to raise legislation and they have judicial supremacy (i.e. one can appeal a criminal case to the EU courts). In a proper democracy, there would be a directly, democratically elected government and lower house to manage these powers.

              --

              This sounds like a somewhat theoretical distinction, but the absence of such a body has direct consequences: no one has ever proposed a meaningful *manifesto* for how Europe should be run that folks can vote on. I voted in European elections for the last 20 years, but if I am honest I have no idea what I am voting for, because the people I am electing have no meaningful manifesto. This is because they are not in charge.

              Let me give an example. Amount of money going to EU from member states was a controversial topic that came up in the Brexit referendum. If I think that too little, or too much, money is going to the EU from Britain, who should I vote for that can actually change it?
              My MEP can't. My MP can't and has lots of other distractions. Who can I vote for who can make a meaningful change?

              Compare that with, say, the Foreign Aid budget (about 1 % of UK GDP IIRC, and something which I note no one is complaining about). If I have a strong opinion, I can write to my MP and look at different party manifestos and vote for the party that says they will increase it or decrease it. My vote counts for something. That simply is not the case in the EU.

              There is another fundamental problem with the EU, as a consequence of the lack of democracy. No one is in charge. There is no meaningful "president". Sure, someone gets nominated every year or whatever (crazy!) But there is no equivalent to POTUS, or the UK PM, who can actually make stuff happen. This, I believe, leads to an organisation that lacks goals and tends to exist for existence sake. That is okay for a trade federation, or a military alliance. But because EU has legislative primacy, it is not good enough for the EU. Someone needs to be running the show.

              What has shocked me the most, and made me switch to a Brexiter (I am very pro-union, just not this union) is that the EU has totally failed to address what I regard as massive, structural flaws.

              • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday September 05 2019, @04:31PM

                by theluggage (1797) on Thursday September 05 2019, @04:31PM (#890107)

                But these are placemen nominated by Boris Johnson, Corbyn et al.

                ...as are the UK cabinet ministers who are the only ones who are practically able to propose UK laws. (Private member's bills have little chance of being passed without the tacit support of the executive).

                > then passed by the directly-elected EU parliament

                the directly-elected parliament has the power to block legislation but not to propose legislation. This is not good enough.

                ...so when the UK Parliament is able to take control of proceedings and propose and pass a bit of legislation, that's a good thing, right? To be fair, I don't recall whether you, personally, have questioned that process, but you only have to turn on the TV and listen to any Brexiteer (from the Prime Minister down) flatly refusing to accept Parliament's decision and supporting every technique short of actually winning the argument to overturn the result.

                I certainly haven't heard any Brexiteers suggest anything about governmental reform after the glorious day (beyond changing the House of Lords which is a whole other argument...) - you know, like introducing proportional representation (something the EU parliament does have), requiring more "direct democracy", getting rid of unelected "special advisors", stripping the PM of prerogative powers, executive orders and other Parliament-bypassing tricks...

                If I have a strong opinion, I can write to my MP and look at different party manifestos and vote for the party that says they will increase it or decrease it. My vote counts for something. That simply is not the case in the EU.

                Compare that with, say, the Foreign Aid budget (about 1 % of UK GDP IIRC, and something which I note no one is complaining about). If I have a strong opinion, I can write to my MP and look at different party manifestos and vote for the party that says they will increase it or decrease it. My vote counts for something. That simply is not the case in the EU.

                Sorry to disillusion you, but your MP isn't going to vote down the Budget because of a few letters. Many MPs are brilliant if you write to them regarding some personal matter that they can actually fix or a question they can actually answer, but if you send them your thoughts on Big Politics there's little they can do beyond sending a memo to the Minister which may be recorded in some dusty ledger... and if its an EU matter they can just as easily send it to the appropriate person at the EU....

                ...as for changing your vote, if you live in a safe seat for one of the major parties, forget it because you're effectively disenfranchised by our electoral system. You're actually more likely to get a MEP that supports your causes thanks to the PR system used in the EU elections. Consequence: we elect UKIPpers/Brexit party members who only turn up to turn their backs on 'Ode to Joy' and fiddle their expenses.

                I voted in European elections for the last 20 years, but if I am honest I have no idea what I am voting for, because the people I am electing have no meaningful manifesto.

                ...and that problem is firmly and squarely the fault of UK politicians and press for basically treating the EU elections as an opinion poll for the next general election, so the manifestos are packed with domestic issues and attacks on the rival parties. If you stay up until 3AM watching the BBC you might - if there's a 2 minute dead spot between soundbites from the more entertaining domestic politicians and infographics of what the House of Commons would look like if the numbers were repeated at the next GE - catch a brief discussion of the various multinational party groupings in the EU parliament and which ones our MEPs would... no, hang on, we're just getting an exit poll from Little Banging-on-the-Wall which was a key marginal battle ground in the last general election!!!

                Seriously, for all the decades we've been in the EU the debate has been dominated by if/when we were going to leave and fake news stories about straight bananas and kipper bans. We take the EU elections less seriously than the Eurovision Song Contest (and half the population probably thinks that's something to do with the EU despite Israel and Australia taking part...).

                Then we complain that we don't know who or what we're voting for in the EU.
                 

                No, I don't particularly like the fact that the EU used "the Common Market" as a trojan horse - but on the other hand, that was decades ago without that we'd probably not have any union, and I rather like the fact we've had all those decades without any of those pesky wars with France and Germany that used to happen every few years.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by epitaxial on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:36PM (2 children)

      by epitaxial (3165) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:36PM (#889498)

      A group of unelected unaccountable officials in Belgium no longer tells the UK how many refugees they need to absorb. What's funny is how quick the pro EU people want to fuck the UK over after they leave. Sounds like a great bunch of people. So they gave countries the option of leaving and when one exercises that option all hell breaks loose? Are they expecting the EU to blacklist the UK and stop all trade and commerce? Or is the EU so petty they would hurt themselves just to spite someone for leaving?

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:12PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:12PM (#889505)

        A group of unelected unaccountable officials in Belgium

        So Boris Johnson was elected as PM? Theresa May was elected as PM? Both answers are no, they were elected as MP. As they were capable of forming a democratic majority they claim the PM role.
        The same is true for the EU, those that can form a democratic majority can claim the relevant roles. Is the current system good enough? hell no. But you don't have to look far in the UK to find many systems that are not elected with similar powers. Starting with the royal family and the house of lords that's already quite a lot of unelected power.

        The unaccountable bit is true though, but as far as I know, that's also the case for the UK, the US and any western European government. The accountability goes as far as: maybe he won't get elected next time.

        Being Belgian, I don't know anyone that wants to fuck over the UK, we're getting a bit tired of the drama over brexit, especially the UK govs drama. But the UK is our biggest trade partner so we would actually seriously prefer you remain. If you don't, trade will be a hassle for a while, till everyone understands the new process, which will be more complex and time consuming.

        Also, Brussels London is like a 2 hour train ride, you'll probably take much longer to get to different parts of the UK than to get to Brussels. (as you seemed to imply that Belgium is so far away and unreachable)

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:51PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:51PM (#889608) Journal

          The royal family have no actual power in politics. A constitutional crisis would result if the Queen did not follow the advice of her Ministers.

          we're getting a bit tired of the drama over brexit,

          The British people are also tired of the drama - this is the politicians failing to carry out their responsibility to govern following the will of the people.

          But the UK is our biggest trade partner so we would actually seriously prefer you remain.

          Therein lies the rub. The problem is that a majority in the UK are happy to trade with Europe, exactly as it did when it was the Common Market. What many do not accept is using money from the UK to prop up Greek and Italian governments who cannot get their own finances in order. They do not like the gradual shift that has been seen to federalism over the last couple of decades. There are many benefits from being in the EU but currently many do not think that they are getting value for money. They have seen their industries decimated to please the whim of Europe.

          The scare-mongering about 'life after Brexit' is just that - we all managed to live and trade together before the UK joined the EU. It can all be done again in the future. The scares about not being able to take European holidays or attending university in Europe are just not true. Spain, Greece, Italy, France will still want the UK holiday makers to spend their money in their holiday resorts, restaurants and bars (17 million people in Spain in 2017. £37.4 billion spent by Brits in Europe on holidays during the same time period). Universities will be happy to accept paying students in their places of learning.

          This is not a one-way transfer of benefits that will be lost, simply something that will need reorganising to make it work. Both sides will want it and will make it happen. But the UK has to leave before anything will be done.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:20AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:20AM (#889404)

    Been following this from the side since the UK started talking about the idea of the Brexit, and I'm a bit stunned about how long this is taking now and when you think the situation can't sink deeper, some British find a way to a newer low. As someone from from main land EU I find it somewhat amusing, but also get tired of that whole postponing and so.

    Maybe the EU needs to show it's balls and reject any postponing. The EU had enough time to build a safety net for its economy (which is IMHO the only reason why they keep accepting this). Get over with it.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:53AM (10 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:53AM (#889414) Journal

      I'm a bit stunned about how long this is taking now

      It's a lot of red tape, extrication from a massive bureaucracy, laws that will need to be replaced, with a large group of politicians opposing or actively sandbagging the process.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:14AM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:14AM (#889424)

        yeah the Brexit idiots really had no plan going into the first Brexit vote. And Boris Johnston still has no plan.

        They have seriously not even sold a bill of goods to the British people. They are seriously out over the ends of their skis and have way over estimated their value to European and world economies.

        The financial entities in City of London can relocate pretty easy. the trading pits are almost 100% electronic HFT bots anymore.

        idiots.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:20AM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:20AM (#889428) Journal

          The financial entities in City of London can relocate pretty easy. the trading pits are almost 100% electronic HFT bots anymore.

          Before they relocate, they could threaten to relocate in an attempt to get more sovereignty and other concessions.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:38AM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:38AM (#889436) Journal

            I have a bunch the rest of the EU has more financial clout than the City of London.
              It's not about the transaction value, is about what you have (or can get) at the end of the day.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:48AM

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:48AM (#889439) Journal

              Maybe they get all the sovereignty, rebrand as Londoneu, join the EU as a Hong Kong style state landlocked within the UK, and UK tolerates it to keep all the rich people living there and leaking their rubles [theglobalist.com] outside of the Square Mile.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:56AM (3 children)

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:56AM (#889465) Journal

          They did and do have a plan and it is progressing:

          - Con the public into voting for a soft Brexit, with impossible promises of pots of gold and return to empire and magical ice-cream farting unicorns for everyone.
          - Shift the goalposts towards an ever harder brexit. Condition your supporters into rejecting all rational debate and instead seeing everything in terms of conflict and treachery, label any and all criticism as "Project Fear".
          - Crash out no-deal and make shitloads of money from the wholesale rape and pillage of the UK, it's economy, institutions and people.
          - Watch Britain burn on TV while sipping champagne off the coast of Monaco.

          There was never a plan for a deal. No deal is and always was the plan.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:56AM (2 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:56AM (#889490)

            Another part of the plan, and the reason the DUP are in the government, is that they want to go back to the "Good Old Days" of a militarized Northern Ireland, complete with random bus bombings and indiscriminate murders. Indeed, I can't help but wonder whether there are people in the government secretly hoping to attack and annex Ireland again in a stupid attempt to restart the British Empire.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:15PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:15PM (#889615)

              that seems like it would be bad for business.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:37PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:37PM (#889630)

              As the Brits say, "Not bloody likely."

      • (Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:54AM

        by quietus (6328) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:54AM (#889464) Journal

        How big is that massive bureaucracy, actually? Can it be compared against the number of officials in the UK?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:22AM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:22AM (#889485)

        Slavery takes minutes, escape from slavery takes decades, apparently.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:11AM

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:11AM (#889421) Journal
      "Maybe the EU needs to show it's balls and reject any postponing."

      But they are unlikely to self-own quite that profoundly.

      So far they've pursued a clear policy of cowing the UK back into line; either by forcing them to retract the Brexit notion and beg for forgiveness, or in alternative by forcing them to accept an exit deal that leave them effectively a puppet state. If they actually did what you suggest, they would force a no-deal Brexit, which is the last thing they want to actually happen.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:59PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:59PM (#889573)

      The EU is the main cause of the delay - they have refused to negotiate a trade deal.

      Nb: I voted Remain to start with, but the EU's total failure to deal with Brexit has turned me strongly against the EU. There are huge structural problems in EU which they have failed to address in any way. Others will follow.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:45AM (9 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:45AM (#889411) Homepage Journal

    If nothing else, a general election would bring clarity. It would be, in effect, a second Brexit referendum.

    The pro-Brexit people claim that a majority of the population is behind the idea, and it's just stupid politicians standing in the way. The anti-Brexit people claim that the referendum was poorly presented, poorly understood, and that the voters would take it back if they could. An election will give the voters the chance to tell Parliament very clearly what they want.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:08AM

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:08AM (#889419) Journal
      This is probably the healthiest way to look at it.

      Few on either side will look at it this way, I fear.

      The Brexiteers (and even many Remainers) will point out that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that if the referendum had failed that would have been the end of it. For a generation, at least, and after a generation it would be unlikely to come up again.

      But it doesn't work the other way. This is one of the profoundly anti-democratic practices of the EU that helped to inspire Brexit; there are votes, but there are predetermined outcomes to the votes, and if you (the voters) don't get it right then you can just keep voting until you do.

      And of course the Remainers (not all, but many) aren't going to be any more inclined to accept the results of the next vote than they were the last, if it goes against them.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:48AM (5 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:48AM (#889440) Journal

      If nothing else, a general election would bring clarity.

      It may but again it may not.
      The Brexit is in shambles because the Brexiteers don't have a clear and coherent set of objectives they want to achieve. Pretty much like the Occupy... movements at the depth of GFC, they knew they don't want the same wall Street shenanigans any more, but couldn't tell what they want instead.

      If Brexit wins again, this can drag on indeterminately.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:53AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:53AM (#889442)

        I went to occupy once. They wanted to give more money and power to the same people who screwed them over the first time.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:01AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:01AM (#889445) Journal

          Chances are, the next day after you were there, they wanted the opposite.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:59AM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:59AM (#889492)

        The Brexit is in shambles because the Brexiteers don't have a clear and coherent set of objectives they want to achieve.

        Yes they do: Those clear and coherent set of objectives were to give Boris Johnson and the likes of Nigel Farage the power to do whatever they want without interference from those jerks in Brussels, without any negative consequences for the UK economy.

        That these objectives are stupid and unachievable doesn't change what the point was.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:34PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:34PM (#889702) Journal

          without interference from those jerks in Brussels, without any negative consequences for the UK economy.

          They may be clear but they are self-contradictory (at least ATM), therefore not coherent.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:29AM (#889486)

      The anti-Brexit people claim that the referendum was poorly presented, poorly understood, and that the voters would take it back if they could.

      Yet guess what happens when that argument is made regarding the FUD campaign the self-same motley crew of anti-brexiteers mounted wearing their 'better together' hats during the Scottish Independence referendum and the outright lies they told to swing that vote? (e.g. The relevant biggie here being the only way Scotland would be able to stay in the EU was to vote to No and keep the UK alive..)

      tossers, the lot of them.

      The problem with a general election now, as is obvious by the way Labour are running scared and don't want it, is that it will return a seriously right of centre government to the UK, and that will be taken as a mandate for all the fun things that the powers behind the Boris muppet have in store for us all. Personally, I think we're fucked whatever happens now, I just curse the fact that the Irish side of my family stopped registering their births back there, so the Irish passport is out of the question.

    • (Score: 1) by therainingmonkey on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:06PM

      by therainingmonkey (6839) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:06PM (#889555)

      I wouldn't count on it.
      Remember we had an election in 2017 which, if anything, only reduced clarity.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:43AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @09:43AM (#889458)

    It is almost like the old Laurel and Hardy movies, where Hardy says "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into".

    Only Brexit is a farce way beyond the Laurel and Hardy ones.

    The original referendum was called to ensure PM David Cameron's re-election because he could not in his wildest fantasy believe that the British people would be in a mental state to self harm — only, he was wrong and had to step down not so long after. Nice shot in the kneecap.

    The question in the referendum was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Since no one knew (actually, no knows still!) what "leaving the European Union" really meant, people could put whatever political grievance they had into voting Leave. The referendum was really a sham since it did not give people the option of an informed choice, neither did it give people options as to the kind of break the wanted, like a no-deal break where the UK would have to trade on WTO terms or a customs union where the UK would achieve some freedom from EU rules but still have to abide by many, ... People did not know what they voted for, which now causes all sorts of trouble due to political posturing by MPs.

    After she took over from David Cameron, Theresa May managed to get a deal with EU that seemed tolerable, even to me — only, she could not get it through parliament. Not because the deal was bad as such but because accepting it would stop the zealots from achieving their goals. The die-hard Brexiteers would not get a clean-break-no-Irish-border-back-stop-Brexit and the die-hard Remainers would have to accept that the UK would actually leave the EU. An impossible impasse ensued.

    Then madness prevailed and Boris Johnson got elected Prime Minister. This guy has, as Foreign Secretary, managed to act like a bull in a china shop in his dealings with foreign countries, has embarrassed the country on several occasions and has even had to apologise a number of times. Furthermore, Boris Johnson's Brexit stance seems very opportunistic/populistic. Before Brexit he had prepared two articles for the Telegraph, one for Brexit and one against Brexit. He seemed to read the population right when he chose to go with the pro Brexit article, only his duplicity was revealed when the remain article found its way into The Sunday Times.

    Now Boris Johnson seems hell-bent on getting a no-deal Brexit, to the extent that he, in a manoeuvre that Vladimir Putin would applause, tries to find a way to disable the parliament processes blocking a Brexit for sufficiently long to achieve his goals. If he actually manages to get the no-deal Brexit through by proroguing parliament (suspending it for a period), it looks very much like a sort of coup and should have serious consequences for him.

    With people fleeing the Tories, we may still see some semblance of reason, though I am not entirely confident reason will prevail.

    Disclosure: Living as an immigrant in England, I am a staunch Remainer.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:06AM (#889467)

      Cool story bro. We voted to leave. [spiked-online.com] The political class and media lackeys will stop blatently lying [twitter.com] or face the consequences.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:06PM (3 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:06PM (#889504)

      Another reading: Theresa May and the EU negotiated a deal that was completely unacceptable to anyone, either Remainers or Brexiteers. Boris Johnson was selected by his party to bring the country out of the current Brexit impasse by any means, and he is doing so.

      > Since no one knew (actually, no knows still!) what "leaving the European Union" really meant, people could put whatever political grievance they had into voting Leave.

      I think it was, and is, pretty clear what people voted for. The question is a very simple one.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:13PM (2 children)

        by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:13PM (#889533)

        I think it was, and is, pretty clear what people voted for. The question is a very simple one.

        Trouble is, you don't know what 17 million leave voters really voted for any more than I do.
        Maybe some of them believed what they read on the side of that bus, or that Turkey was about to join the EU and we'd all be wearing burkhas. Maybe they just voted because they hated David Cameron and George Osbourne? If not, the leave campaign certainly wasted a lot of money on paint and posters. Its not about whether 17 million people didn't know what they were voting for, its whether a tiny proportion of those were swayed by the more questionable claims being made by both sides - and also how many people didn't bother voting because (like Cameron) they assumed that 'remain' was going to win.

        The problem with a referendum with a simple, straightforward question is that real life is often neither simple or straightforward, and if it isn't backed by a detailed manifesto for both options, with some accountable group attached to each option, then its no way to make an important, irreversible decision.

        So, why not have another referendum now that we've had 3 years of debate and there are 3, objective options: (a) Revoke article 50, (b) accept May's deal or (c) Leave at the next deadline with no deal - mark your first and second choice, instant runoff...? It could even be made legally binding, since its totally unambiguous. Frankly, it should have been done last December, the first time that parliament rejected May's deal - if so, it would all be sorted by now and it is entirely possible that would mean "out". If we can organise a general election by Oct 15th, we could organise a referendum before the 30th.

        We can possibly agree on the fact that kicking the can down the road until Jan 30th is a waste of bloody time unless something else changes to break the logjam. However, if there's a general election then its entirely possible we'll end up with enough NuTory, DUP and Brexit Party (Or Tory/Brexit joint candidates) to get brexit through - and I wouldn't trust Corbyn to stop Brexit if he got a majority (the EU is just as inimical for the Glorious Worker's Paradise as it is for Tax Haven UK). But, then, that would be our parliamentary democracy working as intended...

        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:04PM (1 child)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:04PM (#889577)

          > Trouble is, you don't know what 17 million leave voters really voted for any more than I do.

          By this logic any vote to leave is invalid. It doesn't seem like a terribly strong argument.

          > why not have another referendum

          I agree. Actually, what should have happened after (even before) the Scottish referendum and Brexit referendum is the government should have sought advice on how to handle a "close" referendum result. If the referendum result is 60/40, well it is pretty clear that the 60 % wins. If it is 50/50 or 51/49, what then? Someone authoritative needs to decide something like "status quo wins but trigger another referendum in 5 years". Also "if there is a strong majority like 60/40, the majority wins and another referendum can't be triggered for 30 years" to avoid the losers just pursuing another and another referendum.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:38PM

            by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @04:38PM (#889586)

            By this logic any vote to leave is invalid. It doesn't seem like a terribly strong argument.

            It's actually a pretty strong argument for not making irrevocable decisions affecting the next couple of generations based on a simple majority in a single referendum with a simplistic yes/no question. The result would probably fail any test of statistical significance and could have been swayed by something as stupid as the weather on polling day.

            Its a strong argument for having something like a parliamentary democracy that can debate, amend and change its mind, with regular elections to hold them to account. Next time, maybe, at least get parliament to write the bill first, then hold the referendum, so there's a clear, detailed proposal to vote on. Oh, and don't let the current PM and Chancellor run the campaign, because everybody hates them (whoever they are).

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:58AM (8 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:58AM (#889480) Journal

    Wouldn't it be really funny if the UK were instead to petition to become American states? That would be telling the EU to suck it.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:41AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:41AM (#889488)

      That would be telling the EU to suck it.

      But I doubt the EU would be able to understand much of it, what, with the US's dick so deep in the UKs throat.

      Then again, a British royal could run for president, and with the US's admiration of the royal family, he could win that easily. (and be better at it than your current nitwit)

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:01PM (2 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @12:01PM (#889494)

        and be better at it than your current nitwit

        The Brits wouldn't need to waste one of their royals on the presidency: They could easily win the presidency running a cucumber sandwich against the current nitwit.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:11PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @06:11PM (#889614)

          The US tried that. The electorate didn't care for the cucumber sandwich's pantsuit.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:49PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:49PM (#889663)

            No, they ran somebody else who was kinda hated. It's sort of like how now, Boris Johnson would be more likely to lose in an election against somebody nobody's heard of than he would running against Jeremy Corbyn.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:24PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:24PM (#889512)

      Wouldn't it be really funny if the UK were instead to petition to become American states?

      No need - Boris and Donald are already sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G - if we're stuck with no trade deals and in a state of dispute with the EU, he'll sell us to the US for the traditional handful of beads without any inconvenient complications like letting all us Brits come over there and vote for liberals or royalists...

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:09PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:09PM (#889530) Journal

      A differenter option:

      America could petition to become a Russian possession, and the UI could petition to become a Chinese possession.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:35PM (#889563)

        America already voted to trade antifa members fighting for communism for hong kong protestors fighting against communism.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 05 2019, @02:27AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday September 05 2019, @02:27AM (#889810) Journal

        Why would a country with 350 million people with a GDP of $19.4 trillion petition to take orders from a failed state of 120 million with a GDP of $1.5 trillion and whose men drop dead at an avg 66 years old? That's just goofy.

        As for the UI becoming a Chinese possession, well, that only happens when you click on the flashing neon yellow malware ad for hot Hong Kong babez on Pornhub.com. Or...so a friend told me once.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
(1) 2